Pesachim 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

Two cows were plowing on Mount HaMashḥa [

the Mount of Olives].

As long as the two of them were plowing,

the entire people

would eat

leaven.

If one of them was removed,

they

would suspend judgment: they would neither eat nor burn.

If both of them were removed, the entire people would begin burning.

Mishna:

Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says:

even though it is prohibited to render pure sacred meat impure, it is permitted to render sacred meat that contracted a less severe impurity impure with a more severe impurity, since in any event it is destined to be burned. Therefore,

throughout their history the priests

did

not refrain from burning the meat

of sacred offerings

that became impure through

contact with

an offspring of impurity [“An offspring of impurity” is something that came into contact with a primary source of impurity and thereby became a first-degree source of impurity. Meat that became impure through contact with it becomes second-degree impure], together

with

the meat that became impure

through contact

with a primary source of impurity,

and thereby became first-degree impure.

And

even though

the two pieces touch one another during their burning, and the priests are found

adding

thereby

impurity to the impurity

of the meat that became impure through an offspring of impurity [The Gemara will explain what additional impurity is involved here].

And they have no concern about this, since it is destined to be burned.

And it is taught here because of the latter clause, which discusses the removal of leavened teruma.

Rabbi Akiva added and said: Throughout their history the priests did not refrain from lighting the oil [

of teruma]

that was rendered unfit through

contact with

one who immersed that day, in a lamp [

a receptacle for oil and a wick]

that became impure through

contact with

a corpse-tumah carrier.

And

even though they add

thereby

impurity to the impurity

of the oil.

One who immersed to purify himself from his impurity is immediately pure with regard to non-sacred food. However, he still disqualifies teruma and sacred offerings until sunset [that is, until the end of the day]. His status is that of a second-degree source of impurity, which disqualifies teruma and renders it third-degree impure.

This law is derived from the case of a woman after childbirth, concerning whom it is stated: “And she shall not touch any sacred thing.” A woman after childbirth is considered one who immersed for a prolonged day until the end of her purification period, since until then she is not fit to bring her atonement offering. Accordingly, the lamp, which became impure through a corpse-tumah carrier, becomes first-degree impure, because the corpse itself is a primary source of primary impurity, and a person who touches it becomes a primary source of impurity. He renders the vessel that touches him first-degree impure.

It follows that the lamp, which is first-degree impure, renders the liquid that touches it second-degree impure. Therefore, teruma oil that was third-degree impure because it was rendered unfit through contact with one who immersed that day, when it is placed in a vessel that became impure through a corpse-tumah carrier [which is first-degree impure], now becomes second-degree impure. Although it is prohibited to render pure teruma impure, as it is written: “You shall safeguard My terumot,” there is no concern here, because in any event the impure oil is destined to be burned. [

This is how Rashi explained it. However, according to the Gemara’s conclusion, he establishes it even in a case where the oil becomes first-degree impure].

Rabbi Meir said: From the words

of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Akiva

we have learned that one burns teruma [

of leaven]

that is pure together with

the

impure teruma on Passover,

even though the pure teruma thereby becomes impure.

And although it is prohibited to render pure teruma impure, here they were not concerned, since in any event it is going to waste during the removal of the leaven.

Rabbi Yosei said: This is not the correct analogy!

You cannot derive this from the words of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara will explain his reason.

Rabbi Yosei said that although we find that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua dispute this matter,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree

with regard to impure and pure teruma

that they burn

on the eve of Passover

this separately and

that

separately,

so that the impure teruma will not touch the pure teruma and render it impure.

With regard to what did

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua dispute?

With regard to

the teruma

whose status is suspended [

of uncertain impurity]

and

with regard to the teruma

that is impure.

As Rabbi Eliezer says: This one shall be burned separately and that one separately,

because we are concerned that the suspended teruma may in fact be pure, and it is prohibited to render it impure.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says:

They shall be burned

both together.

Since its status is suspended and it is unfit to be eaten, you are not commanded to safeguard it.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Throughout their history the priests did not refrain from burning the meat that became impure through an offspring of impurity together with the meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity, even though they add impurity to its impurity.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: What additional impurity is involved here?

Now,

after all,

the meat that became impure through an offspring of impurity—

what is its status?

Is it not

second-degree

impure? This is because the offspring itself is first-degree impure, and the meat that touched it becomes second-degree impure.

Whereas the other meat, which became impure through a primary source of impurity, is only first-degree impure.

And if so,

when he burns it

the meat that is second-degree impure

together

with the other

meat

other

that became impure through a primary source of impurity,

which is first-degree impure—

what is its status,

what additional impurity will it acquire?

Is it not the case that even now, when it becomes impure through contact with meat that is first-degree impure, this meat will be only

second-degree

impure? For now it is touching meat that is first-degree impure.

It is second-degree already! And

if so,

what

“adding impurity to its impurity”

is there?

Rav Yehuda said: Here

we are discussing meat that became impure through contact

with the offspring

of an offspring [which is second-degree impure].

We are dealing

with a case where

this meat

is

third-degree impure, since it became impure through contact with meat that is second-degree impure.

Now, when it is burned together with the other meat, which is first-degree impure, it becomes second-degree impure through contact with it.

And he holds

that Rabbi Ḥanina maintains that third-degree impurity

may be made into second-degree impurity,

since even while it is third-degree impure it is destined to be burned.

But the difficulty still remains: How is additional impurity imparted to it?

But food cannot render food impure.

And if so, even when the first-degree meat touches the third-degree meat, it does not render it impure and does not make it second-degree impure!?

As it was taught in a beraita: One might have thought that food renders food impure;

the verse states: “And if water be put upon seed, and any of their carcass fall upon it, it is impure.”

This teaches you that only

it [

the food upon which a creeping creature fell] becomes

impure. And it does not

itself

render

another food that is

like it [

that is, also food]

impure! Rather, food renders only liquid impure, and liquid renders food impure. But food does not render food impure.

This works for Abaye, who said: They taught

that food does not render food impure

only with regard to non-sacred food; but with regard to teruma and sacred offerings,

impure food

does render

even

something like it [another food] impure! According to him, there is indeed additional impurity here. For

the

meat

that is first-degree impure renders the meat that is third-degree impure second-degree impure.

And

even

according to Rav Adda bar Ahava in the name of Rava, as well,

this is properly resolved.

For

Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of Rava:

They taught

that food does not render food impure

only with regard to non-sacred food and teruma. But with regard to sacred offerings,

impure food

does render

another food

like it

impure.

Thus, even according to him there is indeed additional impurity here, since the case involves meat of sacred offerings.

But according to Ravina in the name of Rava, who said: The verse speaks explicitly,

in every context,

the verse speaks

as stated,

it makes no difference whether it is non-sacred food, teruma, or sacred offerings: impure food

always

does not render

another food

like it

impure—

what can be said?

According to him, even with regard to sacred offerings, meat does not render meat impure. What additional impurity is involved here?!

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case where there were liquids together with [

with]

the meat!

That is, when the first-degree meat touched the primary source of impurity, there were liquids upon it.

Those liquids also became impure with it and likewise became first-degree impure, and the liquids still remained present.

Now, when he burns together with them meat that is third-degree impure,

it becomes impure

the third-degree meat

because of the liquids

upon the meat, which are first-degree impure , and the meat that touched them thereby becomes second-degree impure.

And we reject this:

If so,

if the impurity is caused by the liquids upon the meat and not by the meat itself,

what is this

that the Mishna teaches: “They did not refrain from burning the meat that became impure through an offspring of impurity

with the meat that became impure through a primary source of impurity”?

After all, it should have taught:

“with the meat and the liquids

upon it,”

it should have been necessary for him

to teach.

And we provide another answer:

Rather, although food does not

render food impure by Torah law, by rabbinic law, nevertheless,

food

does render

food impure.

Rabbi Ḥanina teaches us that even though rabbinic impurity is added to its impurity, we are not concerned about this, since in any event it is going to waste.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva added: Throughout their history the priests did not refrain from lighting

oil that was rendered unfit through one who immersed that day, in a lamp that became impure through a primary source of impurity.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Now,

after all,

the oil that was rendered unfit through one who immersed that day—what is its status?

Is it not

third-degree

impure?

For one who immersed that day is himself considered second-degree impure, and through his contact he renders the oil third-degree impure. Whereas the lamp that became impure through a corpse-tumah carrier becomes first-degree impure, since it touched a primary source of impurity.

And if so,

when he lights the oil

that is third-degree impure

in a lamp that became impure through a corpse-tumah carrier,

which is first-degree impure—

what is its status?

The third-degree oil becomes

second-degree impure.

And the difficulty arises:

what is Rabbi Akiva teaching us

?

If you wish to say that he teaches us that

third-degree impurity may be made into second-degree impurity,

did Rabbi Ḥanina not already teach us this, as explained above?

It is the same thing

that Rabbi Ḥanina taught us.

Rav Yehuda said:

Here we are dealing

with a metal lamp.

When a corpse-tumah carrier touched the lamp, the lamp became a primary source of impurity, and not first-degree impure.